How Voting and Consensus Created the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III)

TY - JOUR

T1 - How Voting and Consensus Created the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III)

AU - Davies, James

PY - 2016/9/21

Y1 - 2016/9/21

N2 - This article examines how Task Force votes were central to the development of DSM-III and DSM-III-R. Data were obtained through a literature review, investigation of DSM archival material housed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and interviews with key Task Force members of DSM-III and DSM-III-R. Such data indicate that Task Force votes played a central role in the making of DSM-III, from establishing diagnostic criteria and diagnostic definitions to settling questions about the inclusion or removal of diagnostic categories. The article concludes that while the American Psychiatric Association represented DSM-III, and the return to descriptive psychiatry it inaugurated, as a triumph of empirically-based decision making, the evidence presented here fails to support that view. Since the DSM is a cumulative project, this article calls for a more socio-historically informed understanding of DSM’s construction to be deployed in how the DSM is taught and implemented in training and clinical settings.© 2016. The attached document (embargoed until 21/03/2018) is an author produced version of a paper published in Anthropology and Medicine and uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self- archiving policy. The final published version (version of record) is available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2016.1226684. Some minor differences between this version and the final published version may remain. We suggest you refer to the final published version should you wish to cite from it.

AB - This article examines how Task Force votes were central to the development of DSM-III and DSM-III-R. Data were obtained through a literature review, investigation of DSM archival material housed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and interviews with key Task Force members of DSM-III and DSM-III-R. Such data indicate that Task Force votes played a central role in the making of DSM-III, from establishing diagnostic criteria and diagnostic definitions to settling questions about the inclusion or removal of diagnostic categories. The article concludes that while the American Psychiatric Association represented DSM-III, and the return to descriptive psychiatry it inaugurated, as a triumph of empirically-based decision making, the evidence presented here fails to support that view. Since the DSM is a cumulative project, this article calls for a more socio-historically informed understanding of DSM’s construction to be deployed in how the DSM is taught and implemented in training and clinical settings.© 2016. The attached document (embargoed until 21/03/2018) is an author produced version of a paper published in Anthropology and Medicine and uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self- archiving policy. The final published version (version of record) is available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2016.1226684. Some minor differences between this version and the final published version may remain. We suggest you refer to the final published version should you wish to cite from it.

KW - Borderline Personality Disorder; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); Diagnosis; Robert Spitzer; Self-Defeating Personality Disorder

U2 - 10.1080/13648470.2016.1226684

DO - 10.1080/13648470.2016.1226684

M3 - Article

SN - 1364-8470

VL - 3

SP - 1

EP - 15

JO - Anthropology and Medicine

JF - Anthropology and Medicine

IS - 1

M1 - 1

ER -